This is the first philosophicum thread. The topic we are discussing is:
Is time just a human construct?
Anyone who has an interesting view point on this topic, please chime in! Please use the philosophical methods in this thread wherever possible: questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation
The idea behind this thread is the following:
Here is the companion thread for general discussions:
Level 1 Philosophicum
Here is the proposal and poll thread if you have an idea for the next topic:
Topic proposals and polls

and the poll thread where we take suggestions for future topics is here:

This is a companion thread to “Level 1 Philosophicum”. Anything that is not a topic request goes over there.
Any ideas for the next discussion topic of the philosophicum can go here. We will have a vote every month on the next topic. (
The idea behind the Level1 philosophicum is to discuss ideas and topics of philosophy (in a wider sense) like nature, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The idea behind this thread originated from a discussion in the lounge started by @akaiotak and @tsk about the nature of time and whether it is real. Further example topics would be
What is the meaning of life?
Is technological progress a net positive for humanity?
When is something “real”?
Is Occam’s Razor a universally good heuristic in science?
Was Thanos right?
Add as much detail to your topic as you think is needed but also have one headline.

Although, at the moment it is a bit of an experiment. So far it mostly works but we plan on improving it.

Worked that out yesterday (brain fart) waiting to see the specialist and then all the stress in life fell away and now I don’t give a …
I got this far in life to crack it. Yesterday of all times and then to read this in a forum. whats those odds??

simulation hypothesis -> “Is it possible to even detect if we are in a simulation” / “Ultimately does it even matter if we are in a simulation”

also rejected, as we have the question of what is real and reality in the topic. so those two are bundled together. doesnt make much sense to discuss what is real to then discuss what is simulated. We need to be extra precise on that one, but that only teaches us to do so.

anotherriddle:

If you take your brain, split it in half, and put it into two separate bodies
(Assuming they both live) which one is you?

i reject this for following reasons:
not precise enough as a topic as the question that is fundamentally asked is not phrased and therefore is rejected, contains an assumption that when taken in consideration may be even untrue itself basing the whole discussion not on true ground

not precise enough as a topic as the question that is fundamentally asked is not phrased and therefore is rejected, contains an assumption that when taken in consideration may be even untrue itself basing the whole discussion not on true ground

I know what you mean and I agree with your reasoning. However, want to avoid rejecting proposals. For the next vote/ proposal round I’ll make a clear guide for the format of topic proposals. At the moment it’s still a bit unorganized but we’ll do better with time.

I am all for rejecting proposals on the grounds that they need to be clearly asked and lacking in assumptions/vague notions. Perhaps on rejection an explanation and possible corrections could be suggested?

In case you overlooked it, I’m sorry, I planned to mention the vote in the lounge but I was kind of busy around christmas and now I’m trying to get back on my feet. I hope I’ll do a better job next time.

Yes … its like a more intelligent lounge where intellectual ideas and philosophies are exchanged without the need of slinging through memes and generally autistic shit posting behavior… “no that there is anything wrong with that” - Seinfeld

Topic looks fatigued, bit like the 0.1% that know the journey is about to end in a mess, 1% know the journey will end but not when is (oh look, Squirrel)
Forget the 99% too busy breeding like Squirrels , so is it pointless when even one percent won’t listen to two percent of what point one percent knows?